Talk:Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Canada Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is part of the Canadian law WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

Based on the discussions on the Percy Schmeiser page, I added a suggested merge tag there and a machine one here. Kenj0418 01:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the small page should just be deleted. It does not appear to have any extra info that the large page (Percy Schmeiser ) has Ttguy 22:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think merging the case article into the bio would be that good an idea. There are many famous litigants, such as Morgentaler and Marshall, none of which have the cases within their article. To do otherwise would set a precedent that would be awkward when applied to many other similar case articles. The fact of the matter is the Percy Schmeiser article is more about the case than the person himself, and so the case title would be more appropriate for most of the text. --PullUpYourSocks 03:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think the Monsanto vs... section from the Schmeiser bio page should be merged here, and the bio itself should remain. The case is certainly sufficiently complex, well-known, and generally important as a current affairs-related issue (among others) to warrant its own article. The bio also should also, naturally, remain. In this instance, beyond the fact that Schmeiser is a notable figure by virtue of the case itself, his prominent and active international role as a spokesperson for the anti-GMO movement (a result of the case), and his quite interesting separate battle with his hometown of Bruno (possibly relevant background to his Monsanto battle), clearly require a separate bio. --Tsavage 21:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the Percy Schmseiser article should stay. Looks good as is. --PullUpYourSocks 02:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] reverting the cleanup

I have noticed that my attempt to cleanup this article has been reverted, which is unfortunate because it has made it a much poorer article. In my defence against having "decimated" the pre-cleanup version I would say that I did anything but. The version that I had cleaned up focused on just the basic facts that are needed to understand what the supreme court said and was easy to understand. As the article is now it is very difficult to read and is generally very messy. It contains far too much insignificant information from the trial, it is not organized into any coherent fashion, contains some confused statements of the law, and mixes fact and opinion without citing anything. I would recommend reverting it back to the version from 15:16, 10 March 2006 --PullUpYourSocks 05:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The article needs to be edited down quite a bit, but I find your major edit wiped out much of the important and interesting detail. Since this a complicated case, and it also received a lot of publicity over several years, stripping it down to a barebones outline IMO doesn't properly serve the subject. I'll try to clear up the main dense block... --Tsavage 07:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes on major revisiion started March 2006

I've started to clean up the article. Here is the pre-clean-up version for quick reference; it can be used to check the diffs between any subsequent version.

I'm using the following outline, taken from an Australina case article. I'm not sure if there are other conventions for Canadian case coverage, however, this is practical for organizing and editing down. If there is another format, it can perhaps be updated after the article is in better shape. These are the four main text sections I've installed:

Background includes setting up the case and the previous trials.

Arguments includes the substance of the Supreme Court trial, including reference to the final ruling.

Judgement summarizes the results (which have been discussed in part in the previous section)

Consequences summarizes all post-trial occurrences, discussion of the impact of the ruling, related "trivia", and so forth.

I don't know how long it might take me if I do it alone, so contributions are encouraged. I think much of it is simply reducing the redundancies in the text and writing in a more summary style. At least, that's what I'm planning to do. --Tsavage 21:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Good job on the edit Ttguy 05:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's looking much better. I doubt I will have time to re-read the judgment any time too soon, but I hope to help out when I can. --PullUpYourSocks 14:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)